Temporary injunction is granted with condition of furnishing security. Plaintiff fails to furnish. Effect?

The Nature of a Conditional Injunction

An injunction granted subject to a condition of furnishing security is, in law, a conditional order. The relief does not become absolute until the condition is fulfilled. The underlying philosophy is well-established in equity: a party who seeks a discretionary remedy must comply with any terms imposed by the court as a price of that relief. The very purpose of requiring security is to protect the defendant from loss that may be caused by the injunction, and the Code of Civil Procedure through section 95 recognises that an injunction obtained without adequate grounds may cause injury to the defendant, including injury to reputation. Requiring security is thus the court's way of ensuring that the plaintiff's claim for protection does not impose uncompensated harm on the other side.

Effect of Non-Compliance: The Injunction Does Not Operate

The immediate and logical consequence of the plaintiff's failure to furnish security within the prescribed time is that the injunction does not come into force or, if already operative from the date of the order, ceases to operate. The order is conditional — it has no independent life of its own divorced from the condition. It would be fundamentally inconsistent with the principle of conditional relief to allow a party to enjoy the benefit of an injunction while ignoring the very condition upon which it was granted. An order of temporary injunction, once the operative condition attached to it remains unfulfilled, cannot be said to be in force, and the defendant is not bound to obey it.

The Court's Power to Vacate or Discharge

Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the security condition, the defendant is entitled to bring this to the court's notice and seek vacation or discharge of the injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 4. The provision empowers the court to discharge, vary or set aside any order for injunction on the application of any dissatisfied party. The Uttar Pradesh amendment to Rule 4 adds an even more pointed dimension: where it appears to the court that the party in whose favour the injunction exists is abusing the process of the court — and the failure to comply with a security condition can well be regarded as precisely such abuse — the court has the power to set aside the injunction order. This reflects the broader principle that courts of equity will not allow their orders to be treated with selective compliance.

Conduct as a Relevant Consideration

It is well-established that the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court is a material consideration in the continuance of equitable relief. The courts have consistently held that a party approaching the court for injunction must come with clean hands, and a party that obtains the benefit of an injunction but then neglects to perform the condition that the court itself attached to that benefit is not entitled to continued protection. The Supreme Court has articulated this clearly: the jurisdiction to grant or continue a temporary injunction is purely equitable, and the court looks to the conduct of the party invoking it. The same consideration must apply when the court is asked to determine whether an injunction should continue in the face of non-compliance with its own terms.

Compensation and Section 95

If the plaintiff's failure to furnish security is accompanied by ultimate failure in the suit, or if it appears that the injunction was applied for on insufficient grounds, the defendant may also seek compensation under Section 95 of the Code. This provision allows the court to award, on application, reasonable compensation to the defendant for the expense or injury — including injury to reputation — caused to him. The security that was never furnished was precisely intended to protect the defendant against this very contingency, and its non-provision strengthens the defendant's claim for relief under this provision.

The Broader Principle

What emerges from all of this is a coherent principle: courts grant injunctions as acts of grace, always on equitable terms. The party who accepts the terms of the court's order must honour them. A plaintiff who secures an injunction to protect his interests but neglects to furnish the very security that the court found necessary to protect the defendant's corresponding interests is, in effect, taking the benefit without accepting the burden. Courts have little patience for such one-sided compliance, and the correct legal position is that the injunction either never effectively operated or stands to be discharged — with the defendant entitled to seek both vacation of the order and compensation for any loss suffered in the interim.